I met with the commandant Monday morning at the Pentagon to discuss the issue. By mutual agreement, we decided that it would be best for all involved if I cover IOC in July as an observer, rather than as a participant. Like the 100-plus lieutenants who will be there, I’ll be dropped in the woods at Quantico, Va., before dawn July 2 and spend a full day in the field during the arduous Combat Endurance Test, IOC’s entrance exam. I will follow and report what I see, in similar fashion to what I have done during three embedded assignments in Afghanistan.

I can’t speak for the commandant, but I’ll say that I think this decision is grounded in common sense and respect for the lieutenants — male and female — taking the course. Women attending the course is a big deal in the Marine Corps, and I’ll be allowed to cover it while at the same time not becoming a sideshow distraction for individuals who will in some cases soon be faced with life-or-death choices.

I accepted the commandant’s invitation because it was the only option I had at the time that afforded me access to IOC. Upon further reflection, it seems like doing so would be a burden to both instructors and students. I look forward to covering IOC in a traditional sense, and appreciate the commandant’s willingness to discuss the issue. My first goal remains writing with honesty, thoroughness and respect about the service and the challenges it faces.

18 Comments

Dan — will there be female Marines in the course that you’ll observe? If not, this whole evolution is pointless. After all, it’s not IOC that is of interest, rather that the standards of performance of Marines, regardless of gender, are consistently evaluated at IOC.

The big issue is whether or not the Corps will lower infantry officer standards to appease a minority. Affirmative action has no place in the infantry. As a former infantry NCO I’d be happy to serve under a female officer – IF she can keep up. No exceptions.

The course of action that you and the Commandant settled on, is the proper way. Distraction from a correspondent of any sort is still a distraction. Just the fact you are there is enough of one. You have a job to do and so does the Commandant. I think this as a good a solution as one could expect.

Eric, the commandant said this morning during congressional testimony that there are currently five female volunteers for the July course. They can still change their mind and decline, but the odds are high there will be several there.

Just curious, but isn’t distraction what happens in the real world when the enemy is shooting at you, your comrades are yelling for help, and the guy on the phone is asking you what’s going on, all while you are trying to make those very crucial life or death choices?

Dan — awesome! I hope there are. It sure does make for a more interesting piece. OK, I admit it; I’m going to read your copy regardless, but I want to know (and I presume that many of your readers are in the same boat) that the Marine Corps is allowing you to see exactly what they are doing to screen and evaluate IOC participants fairly. And maybe get to see a female Marine kick ass at IOC. How cool would that be? Looking forward to your articles.

“They gave it a run after being recruited to help the Corps in this experiment,” Lamothe wrote. “Still, they didn’t pass. That means ‘flunked,’ ‘failed,’ ‘washed out,’ etc., are all accurate. We want to be sensitive, but we also need to accurately report the news.”

You certainly have a job to do as a journalist, but the Commandant most likely “took umbrage” with the way the article was obviously sensationalized, like so many other MC Times articles. I’m not surprised that you seem to defend the title though, as the larger world of journalism seems to embrace sensational terms like “slammed”, or “blasted” which weren’t in common usage even a few years ago.

“Failed to complete” is a perfectly accurate and suitable expression that you could have used. You just took the low road to sell copy, and the Commandant called you on it.

I do not think the terms “failed,””flunked,” or “washed out” were by any means inappropriate or offensive, and by no means did Dan Lamothe take the “low road” by using them. This is the Marine Corps we are talking about. The Infantry Officers Course at that. Do you think when a male “fails to complete” the course, as you so eloquently put it, he is saved from hearing those terms used in an effort to save his feelings? No. He couldn’t hack it. Why should we be any more politically correct when describing female Marines washing out of the course?

This is our culture. The words that Mr. Lamothe chose is how we would describe it in our own words. I see nothing inappropriate about that.

I have to agree with Adam. While ‘flunked’ may be slightly sensational, it’s pretty accurate when describing someone not making it through the first day of a course. Dan, I’m definitely looking forward to reading your stuff in July.

I agree that that the “offensive” words used in the article were not (offensive). With that said, I support the CMC for defending the very demanding IOC program. I also think that the MC Times staff is doing a terrific job while the US military (and the USMC specifically) is immersed in a ill-advised and ill-conceived social experiment that is brought on by the Kool Aid drinkers who are hellbent on the total destruction of our once-great nation.

Who said the words were offensive? That is not the point. Lamothe is not part of our culture and really doesn’t rate to sensationalize the IOC process. As I said, that’s why the Commandant called him on it, and it’s why he backed down from going all in.

I am not trying to be politically correct here, but the women volunteering to enter the IOC are a cut above the normal female graduates of TBS. “Failed to successfully complete” is just as accurate and less demeaning to those women who are trying to help the USMC with this training evaluation.